Aug 272012
 

Alright, let’s get this straight/summarised:

Joshua Trevino is a staunchly pro-Israel conservative columnist who once worked as a speechwriter for George W. Bush – you know, the guy that bombed the hell out of Iraq in search of WMD that were… well, not there.

One telling quote:

When boats carrying unarmed civilian activists attempted in June 2011 to break the blockade of Gaza, Treviño tweeted out a message to the Israeli army: “Dear IDF: If you end up shooting any Americans on the new Gaza flotilla — well, most Americans are cool with that. Including me.”

Trevino has been fired from his position as a columnist with prominent British paper The Guardian. (Do read the full TMI article)

Reason?

Being involved with (now defunct?) website called Malaysia Matters, which appears to have been dedicated to Anwar bashing. Word is that this was through FBC Media – that storied company paid to try and put a fake gleam on Malaysia’s tarnished record, and subsequently suspended by the BBC.

At least the British seem to know when to drop a bad egg.

Also worth asking, just so we don’t get more and more confused: do you BN people want us to believe that Anwar is pro-Israel or anti-Israel?

Just saying, I’m losing track here – all this agen Yahudi business, but then hiring Zionists to bash Anwar?

If you’re as tired as I am from this tirade, please feel free to peruse the much more amusingly cut video by MediaRakyat:

Aug 212012
 

Eid Mubarak! :)

Maaf zahir dan batin, termasuk kerana lambat upload posting ini.

Hari Raya ini masa untuk mengenang semua keluarga dan rakan-rakan yang dikasihi, serta mereka yang kurang bernasib. Insyallah, kita akan menggiatkan usaha untuk mengingati dan membela semua yang memerlukannya.

Salam Aidilfitri!

Jun 052012
 

Originally published:

http://malaysiakini.com/news/197771
http://malaysiakini.com/news/197826

Facing Violence in GE 13

Winter is coming.

This 13th of May will not see a solemn observation of one of Malaysia’s darkest moments – it will instead feature, shockingly, the finale of a two week long Umno carnival celebration of its anniversary.

“Nightmare” is the first word that comes to mind.

Over two parts, this article will analyze the following: the landscape going into the 13th general elections, how we can expect both Pakatan Rakyat and Umno linked interests to act in the coming weeks and months in light of this landscape, some increasingly likely scenarios for election day and its aftermath including the possibility of violence, and what we can do to prevent any disasters.

The background

Bersih 3.0 defines a large part of our current sociopolitical landscape.

Especially relevant to this discussion are the massive turnout of hundreds of thousands of people and the now available videos of “protester violence”.

Beyond the events of the 28th of April, there is the rapid disintegration of public confidence in the integrity of our electoral system.

Put quite simply: barring significant electoral reforms, a very significant proportion of Malaysians will – and I will be generous enough this time to add ‘rightly or wrongly’ – doubt the integrity of the results of the next General Elections if Barisan Nasional wins.

Taking advantage?

Before examining Umno, let’s take a look at the other side of the fence.

This article is largely about worst case scenarios, so let’s employ the same approach for Pakatan Rakyat.

To put it extremely crudely (with apologies), some might say that seeing the immense masses turn up on the streets for Bersih 3.0 would give some leaders a serious hard on.

Some might go so far as to think: “Hmm, if these many people are willing to go down to the streets because they believe elections will be unfair…….”

Before long, some will start imagining the ‘glory days’ of Reformasi times. After all, if this many protest the possibility of electoral fraud, how many will come out if they can be persuaded that an election was indeed stolen?

They may even ask – how many can I persuade to come out on the streets demanding that Pakatan be declared winners of the election?

(To be fair, I doubt those leading Pakatan would be so foolish as to pursue such an agenda. We merely examine for the sake of thoroughness these worst case scenarios.)

Besides the considerable number of party supporters, I think another sizeable chunk of Malaysian society will not be hard to persuade, especially – and this is a very, very real possibility – if the election was in actual fact, stolen.

Signalling an intention to cheat

Some ten days before Bersih 3.0, legislation was surreptitiously passed in the dead of night that actually makes it easier for the ruling party to cheat and steal an election.

This was perhaps one of the most under-discussed controversies we faced, and remains an alarming signal that the authorities are not fooling around with their intentions to cheat.

This was not a haphazard, to maybe be used “in case of emergency” type of thing. Some very bad people sat down, and put in extremely meticulous, careful thought about how an election can be stolen.

Of course, we now learn that the amendments have been repealed due to public pressure.

We note Minister Nazri Aziz’s statement that the government was just a “postman”, and unaware of the content of the amendments they sent to be passed as law.

If this is our government’s attitude towards the laws that define our nation, then they are quite frankly even more incompetent than I thought. What sort of fool sends a bill to parliament without knowing its contents?

Next they’ll be carrying suitcases full of cash or worse through airports, saying “Oh, what’s that in there? Goodness me, I had no idea, some guy just asked me to carry this through as a favour. Terribly sorry, old chap.”

The men who plan the nightmare

Let’s examine now the BN reaction to some of the scenarios above, especially if there is evidence of a stolen election, and attendant street protests.

Some will wonder whether PM Najib Razak is capable of the nightmare scenarios I will describe below.

In answer to this, we need only consider a profound, if simple, idea that Tolkien articulated: we do not control power, power controls us.

Should there be a change of government, many very prominent, very powerful, and very entrenched elements fear a loss not only of standing and wealth, but of livelihood and their very ability to walk the streets as free men.

Imagine someone having spent a lifetime robbing a country blind; or actually having blood on their hands from all the dirty deeds you have done.

I am thinking here of a whole bunch of formers: Prime Ministers, Finance Ministers, Inspectors General of Police, CEOs, the list goes on.

These are not men who give a rat’s ass what Najib is willing or unwililng to do, or what he is strong enough or not strong enough to do. These are men who will effortlessly pull the strings of a Prime Minister that was weak to begin with, to ensure their own survival.

Observe some recent developments – firstly, Mahathir Mohamad comments that BN needs a strong government to bring back the ISA, his favourite symbol of unchallengable, supposedly “Malay” power (a tool which, among many absurd things, is necessary to prevent the formation of a Communist government with the return of Chin Peng. I must say this fearmonger needs a better, more up to date, script writer).

Secondly, in a move that is just as mind boggingly illogical, Najib appoints former Inspector General of Police Hanif Omar to oversee the investigation into violent incidents on April 28th.

Once again, we have cops investigating their brother cops. The bullshit the government wants you to buy: “Conflict of interest? What conflict of interest?… Nolah, where got?…”

I can hardly imagine a clearer signalling that the old guard seeks to return to power than this recent tale of two Tuns.

The men I imagine and their associates are not men who will willingly face any type of genuine justice. These are men who will protect themselves and their power, at any cost – any cost whatsoever.

Replacing the carrot with the stick

These are not men who balk at violence either. These are men to whom other men are but pawns.

They would steal an election without batting an eyelid; they would do far worse without batting much more.

No one knows what will happen, but let’s say Pakatan leaders decide to react to an election with clear signs of fraudulence by taking to the streets, bringing as many of the rakyat with them as they can.

What do you think will happen next?

I very much doubt the powers that be will capitulate. I think they will retaliate.

Warm ups have already begun. With the May 13th Umno celebrations this year, it is becoming increasingly clear that those around Najib are pushing a very simple message: For 4 years you tried the carrot. It didn’t work. It’s time for the stick.

Incidents such as described by Chang Lih Kang recently seem to increasingly be the norm – where the fires of racism and hatred are openly fanned by civil servants who are supposed to be neutral (a condition not entirely fulfilled by, say, the Election Commission chiefs). The underlying message is as simple as it is crude: behave and yield to our dominion, or we will beat the shit out of you.

*

Resisting Violence in GE13

Violence has a tendency to be a self-fulfilling prophecy.

In part one of this article, we looked at how the crisis of confidence in our electoral system sets off a chain of events that ends in a situation wherein the powerful will have many temptations to employ violence as a means to retain power. Today, we start by examining how violence may be engineered.

My feeling is that plans are already in place to use extremely selective video footage from Bersih 3.0 in an attempt to incept into people’s minds the notion that voting against BN will lead to violence on the streets.

Possibly both before and after the elections, with one hand the powers that be will release the Malaysian equivalent of the Nazi brownshirts – gangsters who specialise in intimidating political opponents (a group that has had much practice and warm up exercises in anti-government political ceramahs throughout Malaysia recently, targeting the likes of Nurul Izzah) – into the public, instigating mass violence, and brutal clashes with any street protesters challenging fraudulent electoral results.

With the other hand, they may thereafter send in the men with guns – the police and perhaps the military – to ‘restore order’, possibly paving the way for another Emergency declaration (after all, was that not the backdrop to the rise to power of our current PM’s father?).

Should this come to pass, God forbid, blood may run in the streets, while fear runs rampant in society.

Given how our media is severely restricted and unquestionably biased, public opinion will be divided sharply over who is to blame.

What can we do?

Faced with the possibility of this nightmare, the question then becomes: what are citizens of conscience to do?

When I first started reflecting on this, the dilemma seemed very real.

On the one hand, one does not want to be the pawn of any political party – much less so if it will result in falling into a trap of violence set by the powers that be.

On the other, it is equally unjust to allow our very country to be stolen from underneath our noses.

A moral strategy

Far and away the best possible outcome still within reach is for the government to overhaul the electoral system before the next general elections.

We’re talking here about replacing the entire leadership of the Electoral Commission, appointing truly independent individuals to helm the commission, and postponing the elections until Bersih’s recommendations can be implemented.

If we can ensure free and fair elections, the nation will be spared the terrible fate it may otherwise have to face.

Should we find ourselves with a clean system, then all parties must commit fully to accepting the results of the election, one way or another.

Of course, no one is holding their breath waiting for this to happen. Thus, we are compelled to examine other contingencies.

Should there be compelling evidence that the powers that be have stolen an election and refuse to yield power, then the streets must be considered as an option.

Nevertheless, there is more than one way to go down to the streets.

Consistent objective: Clean and fair elections

First and foremost, one must clearly articulate the goal of any street protest (lest we face the problems of direction and achievable goals faced, say, by the Occupy movement). If Pakatan leaders demand that they be declared the winner of the elections, this will give any protest far too partisan a bent, even for my tastes.

In order to keep the battle focused and to dispel any single possibility of moral ambiguity, I posit that the right thing to demand for is for fresh elections to be held under new leadership of the Elections Commission.

The underlying point is this – the government must be elected cleanly in a democratic fashion. As citizens, we must accept any winner of an election, given the crucial condition that those elections are clean and fair.

Thus, it is not our duty to demand that any one party be installed into power; it is, however, our duty to our nation, our children and ourselves to demand that whichever government is elected is elected fairly.

If all involved take the position that fresh elections under a truly independent Elections Commission need to be held in light of proven electoral fraud, then I believe we will gain both the support of the majority, and an unassailable moral high ground.

These two factors are assets that, in my view, make or break a social movement.

Shaping creative, non-violent resistance

Next we must consider method.

How we choose to protest will determine the outcome of the movement.

Our goals should be to find ways to minimise the possibility of any acts of violence that are committed in the name of the movement (note that violence may nearly be inevitable, due to factors entirely outside our control – not least the likelihood that agent provocateurs will be employed).

In addition to traditional methods of protest, should we face the nightmares outlined above, we must also consider less traditional methods.

The sit-in concept of 28th April is a great starting point. What violence can someone commit while sitting down?

To go even further, we need to consider effective ways for people to participate who might otherwise not go down to the streets.

Chief among these that come to mind is a hartal – a general strike.

Excepting emergency services and such, a widespread strike would prove a crippling blow.

No one can be arrested or beaten if he or she decides they have a cold or family emergency that prevents them from going to work.

Should this idea gain traction however – the impact to the nation and its signal as to the illegitimacy of the election cannot possibly be understated.

It is not possible to provide an exhaustive list of viable methods, but I provide the above to give a directional idea.

Political solutions

There are various political solutions that could potentially provide some stability in the aftermath of a stolen election.

It is not viable to discuss them all in detail, but they generally pivot on (the somewhat unlikely event of) having sufficient parliamentarians of conscience and may involve the controversial notion of crossovers and such.

In fact, I believe the choice of BN candidates in these elections will pivot largely on an unwavering loyalty to Najib personally – precisely to stave off any such coup situation.

This will be a defining moment for the rest of the BN component parties as well – and perhaps quite literally their very last opportunity in history to redeem what little is left of their honour.

It will be a time where we look deep into their hearts and souls, and see whether they are indeed irreparably ruled by corruption and greed, or whether some iota of decency and sense of duty to a conscientious democracy may yet redeem them.

Facing down nightmares

The days we face ahead of us may be dark days indeed; it will test us all severely, in very many ways – it will probably test those in politics most of all.

For when push comes to shove, the nation and the world will be watching all political actors closely – it is a time when we will differentiate the visionaries from the short sighted, and the statesmen from the politicians.

It will be a time when we too are tested – as citizens, and as human beings of conscience. A fire comes that will forge and define the type of nation we will endure or enjoy for generations to come. In this hour of reckoning,

Apr 202012
 

The government is getting “smarter”. Having completely failed to suppress Bersih 2.0 by force, they are now trying to make Bersih 3.0 go away by ignoring it.

Indeed, a dependence on stealth and public apathy seems to becoming an increasingly standard modus operandi.

Last night, Parliament sat until some ungodly hour to rush through bills that the government didn’t one anyone to know about.

WTF kinda democracy is this??

Luckily, some people were paying attention. A good activist I know put together a list of alarming facts about amendments to the Election Offences Bill.

In summary, instead of moving towards Electoral Reform, the government has in fact enacted laws MAKING IT EASIER FOR THEM TO CHEAT!

People sometimes ask if we still need to rally for Electoral Reform. Well, I say to all Malaysians of conscience – read this, and see you at Dataran on the 28th.

*

The full impact of today’s amendment to the Election Offences Act:

1. Anyone can now put up anonymous posters without identifying person or printer. Poison posters will now become standard fare. This is exactly the opposite of the demand to end dirty politics.

2. A candidate can only use a party office for the purpose of holding meetings, discussions, ceramahs etc. Candidates are not allowed to use homes, hire halls or set up temporary structures. Nothing is said about ministers and other privileged persons using public facilities.

3. The time when an Agent of a candidate is allowed into the Polling Station is no longer fixed and is now left to the discretion of the EC to decide when a Polling or Counting Agent will be allowed to enter. They are free to chase Agents out of the Polling Station while the results are being fixed.

4. The 50m exclusion zone outside the Polling Centre is now extended to 100m or more, depending on the EC to decide. This makes it impossible for election monitors such as Mafrel to see anything illegal going on. If some major irregularity is being planned, the EC can even set a limit of 2 Km or more.

5. There will be no more Barung Observers who were previously the only non-EC people able to look at the IC of the voter and catch discrepancies. This is a major blow to the plans to weed out phantom voters. They can now walk in freely and the Polling Agent (if he is even allowed into the Polling Station) will have no opportunity to look at the IC of the voter.

These amendments, that were introduced late and shafted through Parliament without any meaningful vote, make a mockery of our electoral process. To work with this kind of flawed process makes idiots out of all of us. A solution must be found.

Jan 082012
 

I was quite amused to wake up this morning to the article below by Dtk Zaid Ibrahim.

Let me be the very first to say that this correspondance isn’t really worth your time (I just had a spare minute and couldn’t help myself). There are a lot more important things going on. So I won’t be offended in the least if you’re not bothered to read. I too should be shifting my focus to things of bigger consequence for the nation.

Not having the best English in the world, I had to look up the meaning of ‘effete’. All I can say is that it’s a step up from ‘bangsat‘ I guess :)

(He’s right about the snob part though, as my close friends can attest to).

Anyway, my article seem to have rubbed him the wrong way, and must apologise for the slight. I don’t think much response is warranted, but what little may be I insert below:

*

About effete snobs

There are many columnists who write about politics and politicians. The worst of the lot is Nathaniel Tan. Last week he wrote a lengthy article in Malaysiakini about politicians and political activists who, according to him, have no integrity and credibility.

He named Dato’ Ibrahim Ali, Datuk S. Nallakaruppan and me as the undesirable ones. His yardstick or measure is simple: if a politician has changed political party more than once, then he is unprincipled and unreliable.

nat: :) As I wrote earlier on Twitter Dtk, you certainly usually have more refined, progressive and admirable views than either gentlemen quoted above. I cannot really say you have more staying power though, in all honesty. Many of the people I was referring to (I suppose others like Wee Choo Keong and Zulkifli Nordin also fit the bill), had a big fight with the current elected leaders of their party, and decided to say forget them, I’m going to go my own way. Was it because of principle, or was it because of ego? I guess every rakyat has to decide that for themselves.

So this professor of integrity has now introduced a new prescription for political integrity: if a politician stays loyal to his party despite having to accommodate and accept many things that are against his beliefs and principles, then he is good and has integrity. Such a person has a larger picture, according to Nathaniel, and is therefore desirable.

In Nathaniel’s simple world, if a politician changes party once, he is still acceptable; but more than once and he is a frog. Why does it depend on the number of times he changes party?

nat: I suppose it matters less how many times, but just from recent observation in Malaysia, it happens that those who move more than once tend to do so for…. less admirable reasons, usually? Just my personal observation, maybe I’m wrong.

Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad left UMNO because of his hatred of Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi. He then rejoined the party after Pak Lah retired. This is good principle for Nathaniel, whereas in my case my actions were unprincipled – but he forgets that UMNO sacked me. Does this count as one “jump”?

nat: It is very rare indeed that I consider anything Tun Mahathir does to be based on ‘good principle’. This case is definitely no different. Quitting Umno in protest of Tun Abdullah is really more in the vein of a drama queen than it is a statesman. 

In Nathaniel’s view it was my fault regardless. I did not have a bigger picture. Perhaps I was too critical. Leaving PKR (two moves now) was also undesirable because I should have stayed on even if it meant that I had to condone electoral cheating and power manipulation.

In Nathaniel’s calculus, one has to be blindly loyal at the cost of one’s own principles to qualify as having integrity. There must be many Nazis that Nathaniel is proud of, seeing as they stood by Hitler to the bitter end. On the other hand, Sir Winston S. Churchill must be a spineless party-hopper since he crossed from the Conservatives to the Liberals then back again. Churchill had many qualities – some good, others bad – but lacking principle or integrity is not one of them.

nat: Yeah, I just love the Nazis. Come on, who doesn’t? (Don’t worry, we won’t apply Godwin’s law :) Had Dtk Zaid read my article from beginning to end, I stated clearly that should a party truly abandon its principles, then it is time to abandon said party. Has it? I look at some of the people still within the party, and measure their decisions against their credibility, the tests of integrity they have endured, and what I know of them personally. If PKR is good enough for them, it’s probably good enough for me. A fair number of people were dissatisfied with the last PKR elections (I certainly voted for a *lot* of people that didn’t win). If Dtk Zaid has proof of “electoral cheating and power manipulation”, I humbly beg him to step forward with and make the appropriate reports to the Registrar of Societies, PDRM, etc, so that we can save the party from people who usurp elections, as well as . If however he does not have proof that would withstand public scrutiny, how does he know for sure himself that there was electoral fraud?

Who is this pompous writer to go around with his own constructed “integrity-barometer” castigating others for lack of principle? If he wants to test his mettle and is willing to let others measure the level of integrity in his system, then I bid him welcome to the world of politics.

Giving one’s opinion about other people is the easiest thing to do. Unless you are also in a political party, you will never understand the travails and difficulties one faces. Politics is a difficult discipline and the choices one has to make are never easy.

It would be better if effete snobs like Nathaniel were less judgmental and harsh about politicians unless they would like to join the Club too. Taking cheap shots from the gallery does little more than display the lack of backbone he would like to accuse others of.

nat: thank you for your kind welcome, Dtk. You joined Umno in 2000, definitely making you my senior in politics. I might not be able however to defer to your seniority within PKR alas, given that unless I’m mistaken, my membership which began in 2007 predates yours (it’s not often I can talk about my membership with vague pride rather than vague embarrassment, thanks for the opportunity :). Your stint in the party though, was longer than Kim Kardashian’s marriage, so it’s all good.

*

We all worked hard for Dtk Zaid in Hulu Selangor. I have no regrets. The coalition chose a candidate, we supported him. I also know some of Dtk Zaid’s family, cool people. So if there’s any personal animosity, it certainly won’t come from this pompous, effete snob :)

Just today, Dtk Zaid and DS Anwar seemed to have a little make up on Twitter, which is all well and good. It’s a little hard to tell where Dtk Zaid and Kita stands at any given time, but I guess that’s not really a major concern. Regardless, I do wish him all the best.

Should I ever come across compelling reasons to change any of my positions, I hope I shall always have the humility to do so. In this case, I alas cannot say I have, so with humble apologies, I will stick to what I wrote in my original article. In summary, I still believe consistency and knowing when to subdue one’s ego still counts for something in this world.